Supreme Court to rule on California's Prop. 8 ban on gay marriage

Justices will rule for the first time on same-sex marriage by deciding the constitutionality of Prop. 8.









The Supreme Court announced Friday it will rule for the first time on same-sex marriage by deciding the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, the voter initiative that limited marriage to a man and a woman.


The justices also said they would decide whether legally married gay couples have a right to equal benefits under federal law.


The California case raises the broad question of whether gays and lesbians have an equal right to marry.








FULL COVERAGE: The battle over gay marriage 


If the justices had turned down the appeal from the defenders of Prop. 8, it would have allowed gay marriages to resume in California, but without setting a national precedent.


Now, the high court has agreed to decide whether a state’s ban on same-sex marriages violates the U.S. Constitution. The court’s intervention came just one month after voters in three states — Maine, Maryland and Washington — approved gay marriages. This brought the total to nine states having legalized same-sex marriages. 


But the justices also left themselves a way out. They said they would consider whether the defenders of Prop. 8 had legal standing to bring their appeal.


The justices made the announcement after meeting behind closed doors. They did not say which justices voted to hear the appeals.


Last year, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Prop. 8, but it did so on a narrow basis. Judge Stephen Reinhardt reasoned that the voter initiative was unconstitutional because it took away from gays and lesbians a right to marry that they had won before the state Supreme Court.


The justices now will have at least three options before them: They could reverse the 9th Circuit and uphold Prop. 8, thereby making it clear that the definition of marriage will be left to the discretion of each state and its voters.


They could rule broadly that denying gays and lesbians the fundamental right to marry violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws. Such a decision would open the door to gay marriages nationwide.


Or as a third option, they could follow the approach set by the 9th Circuit and strike down Prop. 8 in a way that limits the ruling to California only.


In the other gay-marriage cases, the court will decide the constitutionality of part of the Defense of Marriage Act  that denies federal benefits to legally married couples. Judges in New England, New York and California have ruled this provision unconstitutional.


The justices are expected to hear arguments in the two sets of gay marriage cases in March and issue decisions by late June.


FULL COVERAGE: The battle over gay marriage 


Follow Politics Now on Twitter and Facebook


david.savage@latimes.com





Read More..

Video: A Magical Nighttime Journey Through a Fluorescent Reef



A coral reef is a world of kaleidoscopic shape and color. To see one at night, illuminated by its own fluorescence, is even more marvelous still.


This luminous parade was filmed off the coast of Egypt by Lynn Miner and Steffen Beyer, the founders of FireDiveGear, who custom-build photographic equipment for marine biologists and other undersea explorers.


Miner and Beyer dive in the blackness of night, with the only illumination coming from their own lights. These shine at a wavelength between 450 and 470 nanometers, a blue hue that is the only wavelength to penetrate below the sea’s upper waters.


In a sense, FireDiveGear’s lamps mimic sunlight as it’s experienced by life at those depths, only much, much brighter. With the right filters, it’s then possible to see what happens when light shines on reef dwellers. Their pigments become excited and emit photons, the phenomenon known as fluorescence.


“If you hit them with intense blue light, they shine back in purple, yellow, green, red, all the different colors,” explains Miner. “You don’t see those colors if you’re diving with a white light.”



As Al Dove on Deep Sea News describes, the biological function of fluorescence isn’t certain. Depending on the creature, it could have some purpose tied to the visual sensitivity of marine organisms to fluorescent light.


Deep-sea fluorescence could also be a fluke, a coincidental side-effect of other photochemical processes. All that’s certain is that fluorescence, what biologist Mikhail Matz of the University of Texas at Austin calls “the secret color of the deep,” is gorgeous.


“It’s an alternate universe. It’s absolutely a whole other world,” said Miner. “These stunningly beautiful creatures, the colors of these tropical fish — it’s hard to imagine. It’s hard to describe how beautiful they are, the brightness, the diversity.”


Like many divers, Miner is dismayed by the state of coral reefs in the early 21st century. Disease outbreaks, rising temperatures and human development threaten corals around the world.


Yet as Miner and Beyer’s videos make clear, for all that coral reefs have suffered, extraordinary beauty still remains.


More of FireDiveGear’s videos can be found on their YouTube page.


Video: FireDiveGear/YouTube


Read More..

Nurse who took prank call about royal Kate found dead












LONDON (Reuters) – A nurse who answered a prank call at the London hospital that was treating Prince William‘s pregnant wife Kate for morning sickness has been found dead, the hospital said on Friday, in a suspected suicide.


The death comes days after the King Edward VII hospital apologized for being duped by an Australian radio station and relaying details about Kate’s condition which made headlines around the globe.












“It is with very deep sadness that we confirm the tragic death of a member of our nursing staff, Jacintha Saldanha,” John Lofthouse, the King Edward’s chief executive told reporters outside the central London hospital.


“We can confirm that Jacintha was recently the victim of a hoax call to the hospital. The hospital had been supporting her throughout this difficult time.”


Police said they had been called at 9:35 a.m. (4:35 a.m. EDT) about a woman found unconscious at an address near the hospital. The woman was pronounced dead after ambulance staff arrived.


Police said the death was being treated as unexplained but they we’re not looking for anyone else, indicating the nurse had taken her own life.


William and Kate, who left the hospital on Thursday, said they were “deeply saddened” by the death of the nurse, who was married with two children.


“Their Royal Highnesses were looked after so wonderfully well at all times by everybody at King Edward VII Hospital, and their thoughts and prayers are with Jacintha Saldanha’s family, friends and colleagues at this very sad time,” a statement from William’s office said.


CONFIDENTIAL DETAILS


The radio station launched its stunt in the wake of a frenzy of media attention in Britain and worldwide after officials announced Kate was pregnant with a future British king or queen.


Two presenters from Australia’s 2Day radio station called the hospital early on Tuesday British time, pretending to be William’s grandmother Queen Elizabeth and his father, the heir-to-the throne Prince Charles.


Despite unconvincing accents, presenters Michael Christian and Mel Greig were put through to the ward where Kate was being treated and were given details about how she was faring.


Saldanha had answered the call as it was early morning and there were no receptionists on duty, and had passed it to a nurse on the ward. Saldanha, who had worked at the hospital for four years, had not been facing any disciplinary action, a source said.


“She was an excellent nurse and well-respected and popular with all of her colleagues,” Lofthouse said.


William’s office said there had been no royal complaint about the breach of confidentiality, although the hospital said it was reviewing its “telephone protocols”.


“On the contrary, we offered our full and heartfelt support to the nurses involved and hospital staff at all times,” a royal spokesman said.


William’s father, Prince Charles, had made light of the intrusion, joking to reporters after the incident: “How do you know I’m not a radio station?’


The private hospital is one of Britain’s most exclusive and has a history of treating members of the royal family, including the Queen’s husband Philip who was admitted in June for a bladder infection after taking part in a jubilee pageant on the Thames river.


PRESENTERS “SHOCKED”


The prank call and its tragic aftermath comes as Britain’s own media scrambles to agree a new system of self regulation and avoid state intervention following a damning inquiry into reporting practices.


A recording of the call was widely available on the Internet and many newspapers printed a transcript of the call.


The Australian radio station and its owner Southern Cross Austereo said the presenters were shocked and would stay off their show until further notice out of respect for Saldanha’s death.


“Southern Cross Austereo (SCA) and 2Day FM are deeply saddened by the tragic news of the death of nurse Jacintha Saldanha from King Edward VII’s Hospital and we extend our deepest sympathies to her family.


“Chief Executive Officer Rhys Holleran has spoken with the presenters, they are both deeply shocked and at this time we have agreed that they not comment about the circumstances,” an SCA statement said.


The two presenters deleted their Twitter accounts shortly after the news broke and there was widespread condemnation of their actions on the social media website.


“Remember that #RoyalPrank …? Yeah, the girl you humiliated is dead. You must feel great,” one wrote.


Facebook tribute pages swiftly set up after the nurse’s death attracted messages of sympathy, some echoing calls for the radio station to pay compensation to her family and for the presenters to resign.


Saldanha’s body was removed from the red brick, five-storey building where it was found, and transferred to a small private ambulance, shortly after the hospital confirmed her death, a Reuters reporter at the scene said.


She had been staying in staff accommodation in the building, away from her family in the city of Bristol, western England, a source said.


Her family said they were deeply saddened and asked for media to respect their privacy “at this difficult time”, in a statement released by police.


(Additional reporting by Peter Schwartzstein and Michael Holden; Editing by Louise Ireland)


Celebrity News Headlines – Yahoo! News


Read More..

The New Old Age Blog: A Son Lost, a Mother Found

My friend Yvonne was already at the front door when I woke, so at first I didn’t realize that my mother was missing.

It was less than a week after my son Spencer died. Since that day, a constant stream of friends had been coming and going, bringing casseroles and soup, love, support and chatter. Mom hated it.

My 94-year-old mother, who has vascular dementia, has been living in my home in upstate New York for the past few years. Like many with dementia, mom is courteous but, underneath, irascible. Pride defines her, especially pride in her Phi Beta Kappa intellect. She hates to be confronted with how she has become, as she calls it, “stupid.”

The parade of strangers confused her. She had to be polite, field solicitous questions, endure mundane comments. She could not remember what was going on or why people were there. It must have been stressful and annoying.

That night, like every night since the state troopers brought the news, I woke hourly, tumbling in panic. As if it were not too late to save my son. Mom knew something was wrong, but she could not remember what. As I overslept that morning, she must have decided enough was enough. She was going home.

In a cold sky, the sun blazed over tall pines. As I opened the door, the dogs raced out to greet Yvonne and her two housecleaners. Yvonne often brags about her cleaning duo. They were her gift to me. They were going to clean my house before the funeral reception, which was scheduled for later that week. This was a very big gift because, like my mother before me, I am a very bad housekeeper.

Mom’s door was shut. I cautioned the housecleaners to avoid her room as I showed them around. Yvonne went to the kitchen to listen to the 37 unheard messages on my answering machine; the housecleaners went out to their van to get their instruments of dirt removal.

I ducked into Mom’s room to warn her about the upcoming noise. The bed was unmade; the floor was littered with crumpled tissues; the room was empty.

Normally, I would have freaked out right then. I knew Mom was not in the house, because I had just shown the whole house to the cleaners. Although Mom doesn’t wander like some dementia patients, she does on occasion run away. But I could not muster a shred of anxiety.

“Yvonne,” I called, “did you see my mother outside?”

Yvonne popped her head into the living room, eyebrows raised.“Outside? No!” She was alarmed. “Is she missing?”

“Yeah,” I said wearily, “I’ll look.” I stepped out onto the front porch, tightening the belt of my bathrobe and turning up the collar. Maybe she had walked off into the woods. The dogs danced around my legs, wanting breakfast.

I had no space left in my body to care. Either we would find her, or we would not. Either she was alive, or she was not. My child was gone. How could I care about anything ever again?

Then I saw my car was missing. My mouth fell open and my eyeballs rolled up to the right, gazing blindly at the abandoned bird’s nest on top of the porch light: What had I done with the keys?

Mom likes to run away in the car when she is angry. She used to do it a lot when my father was still alive — every time they fought. Since Mom took off in my car almost a year ago, after we had had a fight, I’d kept the keys hidden. Except for this week; this week, I had forgotten.

I was reverting to old habits. I had left the doors unlocked and the keys in the cupholder next to the driver’s seat. Exactly like Mom used to do.

“Uh-oh,” I said aloud. Mom was still capable of driving, even though she did not know where she was going. I just really, really hoped that she didn’t hurt anybody on the road. I pulled out my cellphone, about to call the police.

“Celia!” Yvonne shouted from the kitchen. She hurried up behind me, excited. “They found your mother. There are two messages on your machine.”

At that very moment, Mom was holed up at the College Diner in New Paltz, a 20-minute drive over the mountain, through the fields, left over the Wallkill River and away down Main Street.

Yvonne called the diner. They promised to keep the car keys until someone arrived. By that time, Yvonne had to go to work. She drove my friend Elizabeth to the diner, and Elizabeth drove Mom home in my car.

Half an hour later, they walked in the front door. Mom’s cheeks were rouged by the chill air and her eyes sparkled, her white hair riffing with static electricity. “Hello, hello,” she sang out. “Here we are.” She was wearing the flannel nightgown and robe I had dressed her in the night before. It was covered by her oversized purple parka, and her bare feet were shoved into sneakers.

I started laughing as soon as I saw her. I couldn’t help it. Elizabeth and Mom started laughing too. “You had a big adventure,” I said, hugging them both. “How are you?”

“I’m just marvelous,” said my mother. Mom always feels great after doing something rakish. We settled her on the sofa with her feet on the ottoman. By the time I got her blanket tucked in around her shoulders, she had fallen asleep.

Elizabeth couldn’t stop laughing as she described the scene. “Your mother was holding court in this big booth. She was sitting there in her nightgown and her parka, talking to everybody, with this plate of toast and coffee and, like, three of the staff hovering around her.”

The waitress said Mom seemed “a little disoriented” when she got there. Mom said she was meeting a friend for breakfast, but since she was wearing a nightgown and didn’t know whom she was meeting or where she lived, the staff thought there might be a problem. They convinced Mom to let them look in the glove compartment of the car, where they found my name and number.

It was then that I realized I was laughing – something I’d thought I would never be able to do again. “Elizabeth, Elizabeth, I’m laughing,” I said.

“Ha, ha, ha,” laughed Elizabeth, holding her belly.

“Ha, ha, ha,” I laughed, rolling on the floor.

And she who gave me life, who had suffered the death of my child and the extinction of her own intellect, snoozed on: oblivious, jubilant, still herself, still mine.

Read More..

Wealth Matters: Protect Yourself from Investment Fraud This Madoff Day


From left, Marc S. Drier, Bernard L. Madoff and R. Allen Stanford. Their fraudulent schemes collapsed in late 2008 and early 2009.







THIS is the time of year when most people think of gifts and holiday gatherings. I couldn’t help thinking of frauds past.




Four years ago this week, Marc S. Dreier, a high-flying lawyer, was arrested and later charged with defrauding his clients of $700 million. A few days later, Bernard L. Madoff’s fraud was uncovered. Totaling an estimated $65 billion, Mr. Madoff’s fraud was in a class by itself. And then, a short time afterward, some of the brokers who had been selling fraudulent certificates of deposit for R. Allen Stanford began to turn on him; he was arrested in February 2009 and later convicted of a $7 billion fraud.


These schemes collapsed with the economy in 2008. But on their anniversaries, it may be a good time to ask whether you have done all you can to lower your risk of being caught up in a similar fraud. Call it Madoff Day (celebrated on Dec. 11, the day of his arrest).


Protecting yourself against fraud, or simply bad advice, is easier said than done. The most common advice is to make sure your money is held by an independent custodian or firm whose job is to keep your money safe. That wasn’t the case with either the Madoff or Stanford fraud. But that is only one small step.


So what else can investors do to protect themselves, not only from unscrupulous advisers but also from rushing into an investment that is clearly too good to be true?


Marc H. Simon, a lawyer who lost two years of bonuses, his job and months of unreimbursed expenses when Mr. Dreier’s law firm collapsed, said he has thought a lot about what he could have done differently.


Mr. Simon said that six or seven years before the fraud was uncovered, he knew of inconsistencies in the firm’s 401(k) plans. But the big red flag should have been that Mr. Dreier had sole control over every major decision at the law firm. Still, that had been Mr. Dreier’s pitch: work for him and don’t worry about the irksome details partners typically face.


“People like Drier and Madoff were highly intelligent individuals, they were very charismatic and they were giving people what they wanted,” Mr. Simon said. “It is harder to bring into question those who are providing you something you want.”


Randall A. Pulman, a lawyer in San Antonio who represents many victims of Mr. Stanford’s fraud, agreed that the will to believe was what ensnared people.


“For you and me, it’s too good to be true,” he said. “For the guy who has been working in the oil fields, how is he supposed to know?”


Of course, fraud and just plain bad advice are not limited to the poor or unsophisticated. Robert P. Rittereiser, the former chief financial officer of Merrill Lynch and former chief executive of E. F. Hutton, is working as the receiver for two funds suing J. Ezra Merkin, a former money manager who steered money to Mr. Madoff. Mr. Rittereiser did not think investors in Mr. Merkin’s funds knew that their money was simply being passed on to Mr. Madoff. But even if they did, they may not have seen anything to be concerned about.


“They were investing money and getting appropriate returns for the kind of fund it was,” Mr. Rittereiser said. “Most of them had a relationship of some kind and confidence with Merkin and the people he was dealing with.”


So how do you protect yourself? The first step would seem to be picking an honest adviser. The good news is that only about 7 percent of advisers have disciplinary records, said Nicholas W. Stuller, president and chief executive of AdviceIQ, a company that evaluates advisers. The bad news is that those violations appear only after someone has filed a complaint.


Mr. Stuller’s company, which has now approved some 2,400 advisers, rejects anyone with any type of infraction — from a securities fine to a misdemeanor for getting into a fight. He said this policy might keep some good advisers off the site, but his goal is to search the records of federal and state regulators to find advisers he knows are clean.


“There are advisers who have significant negative disciplinary history with one regulator but appear to be pristine with another regulator,” Mr. Stuller said. “There was a guy in Minnesota who was stealing insurance premiums. In his enforcement record, it says, ‘We’re going to alert Finra,’ but his Finra record is clean,” he said, referring to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. “That’s where the regulators don’t talk to each other.”


AdviceIQ’s main competitor, BrightScope, takes a different approach. It notes disciplinary actions taken against advisers but leaves it up to the consumer to go to regulators to determine what the violations were.


“We want the consumer to go to the source data, because there is a lot of liability in publishing that,” said Mike Alfred, co-founder and chief executive of BrightScope. “Many of these folks are good advisers, and they’ll take care of you. But what if they had one crazy client who put all his money in Internet stocks in 2000 and then sued?”


Read More..

18 arrested in federal crackdown on gang that operated near USC


Federal authorities on Thursday announced a sweeping racketeering indictment against a Mexican Mafia-controlled gang that operated in an L.A. neighborhood just north of USC and was allegedly involved in at least one slaying, drug sales, extortion and robberies.


Eighteen members of the Harpys gang, also known as the Harpys-Dead End gang, were arrested Thursday morning on charges in three federal indictments resulting from “Operation Roman Empire.”


Those arrested include Vianna Roman, 37, daughter of a Mexican Mafia member, Danny Roman, who allegedly controlled the gang while serving a life sentence at Pelican Bay State Prison.


A total of 29 defendants were named in the racketeering indictment, eight of whom were already in state custody. Among them is Miguel Delgado, 18, accused of committing armed robbery against three USC students.


Federal prosecutors alleged that Vianna Roman and her husband, Aaron Soto, 40, traveled to and from Pelican Bay passing along orders from Danny Roman and collecting taxes to be funneled to him through profits the gang made through dealing in methamphetamine, cocaine, crack cocaine and heroin and through extorting businesses, including swap-meet vendors, via threats of violence.


Members of the gang are suspected in the slaying of one gang member who owed a debt, as well as plotting to kill a witness slated to testify against a gang member in a state court case, according to the indictment.


The gang has previously been targeted by the Los Angeles city attorney’s office in injunctions alleging the gang’s members were engaged in shakedowns, robberies, vandalism and murder. A judge issued a court order in 1998 that barred 30 of the gang’s members from associating with one another in the area.

At the time, one business owner said the Harpys asked for $150 to $180 a month for protection from the gang.


The gang controlled an area southwest of downtown that spanned from Normandie Avenue to Figueroa Street and Washington Boulevard to Jefferson Boulevard. Over the course of the operation, authorities seized 8½ pounds of methamphetamine, approximately one-half pound of heroin, approximately one pound of cocaine, 23 pounds of marijuana and 22 guns, according to a press release from the U.S. attorney's office.


If convicted of the racketeering charges, all but one of the defendants face a maximum sentence of life in prison, prosecutors said.


Read More..

Watch Syrian Rebels Make Rockets Out of Assad's Cluster Bombs



When Bashar Assad attacks his own people with cluster munitions, enterprising Syrian rebels don’t just run for cover. They harvest unexploded cluster bombs for parts they can use in homemade rockets to turn back on regime forces. Do not try this at home.


In the video above, shot by the Syrian rebel al-Farouq Battalions, the fuses from cluster bombs get recycled in makeshift weapons foundries for use inside Qassam-style short-range rockets. Taking a page from Hamas in Gaza, the Syrian rebels are now manufacturing their own rockets — much as they have other weaponry — even though gulf Arab states keep a weapons pipeline flowing.


The unexploded cluster bomb here looks to be a Russian AO-1 SCH, according to Steve Priestley, a weapons expert with Sterling Global Operations, a Tennessee-based security company, who agreed to check out the video for Danger Room. A rebel digs up the bomb and disarms it by unscrewing the fuse — which isn’t the greatest idea. The bomb is only supposed to explode when it slams nose-first into something solid, but, Priestley says via e-mail, “I would not be surprised if he’s presently enjoying the benefits of martyrdom … holding impact fuses nose-down, etc., what could possibly go wrong?”



Back at the foundry, the intact fuse has its benefits. The rebels remove the tail fin from the cluster bomb, leaving the main charge, and then attach a homemade rocket motor. (Priestley thinks the motor shows “quite good design/build.”) The rebel in the shot replaces the fuse. “And the rocket is good to go,” Priestley observes. Skip forward to the 6:24 mark, and you’ll hear some Transformers-sounding sound effects as the rebel group shows the finished product getting fired off.


Hamas has been turning captured ordnance into a rocket arsenal for years. Priestley says the Syrian version is, “in terms of quality, probably equal.” The adapter plate used in the videoed demonstration fits neatly between the warhead and the rocket motor and “seems to be well made.” These rockets seem to be smaller than the ones Hamas uses, but Hamas needs to send its rockets across farther distances than the ranges at which Syrian rebels typically fire at Assad’s forces. Another difference: Hamas doesn’t always harvest its warheads, but when it does, it typically takes the main fill from shells or mortars that packs it into a warhead “with ball bearings, scrap metal, etc.” That doesn’t appear to have happened in this video.


The quality of the rockets makes Priestley think the Syrian rebels may know what they’re doing — up to a point. “The way he is handling the rockets and munitions is scary,” he says. The Brown Moses Blog, which tracks the Syrian civil war in depth, has raised similar concerns: Rebels tend to film themselves handling unexploded cluster bombs like they’re not at risk of an unexpected detonation. Bad assumption.


Assad probably isn’t done firing cluster bombs on Syrian cities that the rebels have captured. But he may have something even more deadly in store: As Danger Room reported on Monday, U.S. officials fear that Assad has gotten his chemical weapons ready to fire. President Obama and his chief surrogates have warned Assad against any chemical weapons usage, a warning reiterated Thursday by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. No one wants to see the Syrian rebels coming across chemical ordnance, in any capacity.


Read More..

Kristen Wiig may join “Anchorman: The Legend Continues”












LOS ANGELES (TheWrap.com) – Kristen Wiig is being eyed for a role in “Anchorman: The Legend Continues” for Paramount Pictures, a person familiar with the negotiations has told TheWrap.


Wiig would play opposite Steve Carell, as a love interest in the sequel. The script is still being written, and no cast beyond the principals has been set.












Adam McKay is directing the feature, which is being produced by Judd Apatow through his Apatow Productions banner. The film is a sequel to the 2004 hit, “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy” and is due to be released in October 2013.


Best known for her work on “Saturday Night Live,” Wiig is one of the most in-demand actresses in Hollywood, since appearing in the film “Bridesmaids.” She could recently be seen at the Toronto International Film Festival in the indie feature “Imogene,” and has been busy filming a number of titles, including “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty,” and “Hateship Friendship,” with Guy Pearce.


“Anchorman: The Legend Continues” will see the original film’s cast return, including Will Ferrell, Christina Applegate, Paul Rudd and Carell. The story follows the on-set adventures of San Diego’s top newsman who is played by Ferrell. “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy” made around $ 85 million at the box office.


Movies News Headlines – Yahoo! News


Read More..

Well: Running in Reverse

This column appears in the Dec. 9 issue of The New York Times Magazine.

Backward running, also known as reverse or retro running, is not as celebrated as barefoot running and will never be mistaken for the natural way to run. But a small body of science suggests that backward running enables people to avoid or recover from common injuries, burn extra calories, sharpen balance and, not least, mix up their daily routine.

The technique is simple enough. Most of us have done it, at least in a modified, abbreviated form, and probably recently, perhaps hopping back from a curb as a bus went by or pushing away from the oven with a roasting pan in both hands. But training with backward running is different. Biomechanically, it is forward motion’s doppelgänger. In a study published last year, biomechanics researchers at the University of Milan in Italy had a group of runners stride forward and backward at a steady pace along a track equipped with force sensors and cameras.

They found that, as expected, the runners struck the ground near the back of their feet when going forward and rolled onto the front of their feet for takeoff. When they went backward though, they landed near the front of their feet and took off from the heels. They tended to lean slightly forward even when running backward. As a result, their muscles fired differently. In forward running, the muscles and tendons were pulled taut during landing and responded by coiling, a process that creates elastic energy (think rubber bands) that is then released during toe-off. When running backward, muscles and tendons were coiled during landing and stretched at takeoff. The backward runners’ legs didn’t benefit from stored elastic energy. In fact, the researchers found, running backward required nearly 30 percent more energy than running forward at the same speed. But backward running also produced far less hard pounding.

What all of this means, says Giovanni Cavagna, a professor at the University of Milan who led the study, is that reverse running can potentially “improve forward running by allowing greater and safer training.”

It is a particularly attractive option for runners with bad knees. A 2012 study found that backward running causes far less impact to the front of the knees. It also burns more calories at a given pace. In a recent study, active female college students who replaced their exercise with jogging backward for 15 to 45 minutes three times a week for six weeks lost almost 2.5 percent of their body fat.

And it aids in balance training — backward slow walking is sometimes used as a therapy for people with Parkinson’s and is potentially useful for older people, whose balance has grown shaky.

But it has drawbacks, Cavagna says — chiefly that you can’t see where you’re going. “It should be done on a track,” he says, “or by a couple of runners, side by side,” one facing forward.

It should be implemented slowly too, because its unfamiliar motion can cause muscle fatigue. Intersperse a few minutes periodically during your regular routine, Cavagna says. Increase the time you spend backward as it feels comfortable.

The good news for serious runners is that backward does not necessarily mean slow. The best recorded backward five-kilometer race time is 19:31, faster than most of us can hit the finish line with our best foot forward.

Read More..

Obama’s Tax Plan Would Spare Many Affluent Families





President Obama’s insistence that marginal tax rates rise for families making more than $250,000 has convinced millions of affluent Americans that they are likely to be writing larger checks to the government next year.




But many of those families have no reason to fret.


A close look at the president’s plan shows that a large majority of families making up to $300,000 – as well as hundreds of thousands of families with even larger incomes – would not pay taxes at a higher marginal rate.


Because the complexity of the tax code makes it difficult to draw clean lines, they are the beneficiaries of choices the administration has made to ensure that families earning less than $250,000 do not pay higher rates.


Some of those affluent households still would pay higher taxes next year under other parts of the president’s tax plan and increases imposed by the Affordable Care Act, but not under the centerpiece, the part most frequently promote by the president and most bitterly opposed by Congressional Republicans.


John Boudreau, the president of a Connecticut construction firm who expects to make about $300,000 this year, said that was a welcome surprise. He voted for Mr. Obama and said he was ready to pay taxes at a higher rate. But he’d rather not.


“I’m willing to, but if it works that I’m not, so be it,” he said. “I will not be a person that’s going to stick an extra check in my tax bill as my donation to my country.”


Unless the White House and Congress are able to reach an agreement, federal taxes are scheduled to rise sharply next year for a large majority of Americans. Tax cuts first passed in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush are scheduled to expire. So are cuts passed during Mr. Obama’s first term.


The president’s plan would prevent most of the scheduled increase for those below an income threshold Mr. Obama generally describes as $250,000. The Senate has passed similar legislation. But Democrats remain at loggerheads with House Republicans, who want to prevent scheduled increases for the most affluent households, too. And the parties disagree about how to prune federal spending.


The number that now divides the parties was introduced by Mr. Obama in 2007, in the early days of the presidential campaign, when he promised to extend the Bush tax cuts for families that made less than that amount.


“I can make a firm pledge,” Mr. Obama said in September 2008. " Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”


When policy makers talk about income, however, they don’t mean the amount of money a family earns; they mean the portion subject to taxes. The government does not tax contributions to retirement plans, interest payments on mortgages or charitable donations, among other things. As a result, two families with the same incomes will most likely have different taxable incomes.


To guarantee that tax rates do not increase for any family making less than $250,000, the Obama administration proposed in 2009 to raise marginal rates on taxable income above roughly $230,000 – because the minimum amount of income a family is entitled to shelter from taxation is roughly $20,000.


But the average amount families in that income range are entitled to shelter from taxation is much larger, closer to $60,000. In other words, families with taxable income of $230,000 on average earned about $290,000 in 2009.


“They wanted to be able to say that ‘Absolutely nobody making less than $250,000 could possibly pay higher taxes under our plan,'” said Bob McIntyre, the director of Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal advocacy group “So they had to assume the most ridiculous assumptions, that even if you’re a childless couple with no itemized deductions making $250,001, your taxes still won’t go up. They figured that if this couple existed and their taxes went up, somebody would find them and jump on ‘em.”


Furthermore, to remain consistent with the president’s original promise, the administration has adjusted the original numbers for inflation. When Mr. Obama says $250,000, the White House says he means “in 2009 dollars.” It is now proposing to raise marginal rates on families with taxable incomes above $246,000 – meaning, on average, families earning more than about $305,000.


While the president has said that he wants to raise tax rates for the top 2 percent, only about 1 percent of taxpayers will face higher marginal rates, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a widely respected research group.


The restoration of the other provisions temporarily suspended by the Bush tax cuts, including limits on deductions and higher taxes on investment income, still would raise taxes for only about 32 percent of families with income between $250,000 and $300,000, according to an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice. About 77 percent of families with income between $300,000 and $350,000 would face an increase.


Neera Tanden, domestic policy director for Mr. Obama’s 2008 general election campaign, said the president might not have succeeded in rallying popular support for any tax increase if he had not made the $250,000 promise.


But Ms. Tanden, now president of the left-leaning Center for American Progress, said the administration should reconsider that commitment.


She co-authored a deficit-reduction plan released earlier this week recommending modest tax increases on households making as little as $100,000.


“We think it’s reasonable to ask a couple more dollars from people who make $150,000,” she said.


Some of the beneficiaries see good reasons why their taxes should not rise.


“I wouldn’t exactly say I’m disappointed,” said Ryan Ruby, 36, of Bothell, Wash., after learning that the president’s tax plan probably wouldn’t affect him even though he and his wife make between $250,000 and $300,000 a year. “I do think our tax rates should go up eventually, but right now I think the need for people to have disposable income to get the economy moving is probably more important than broadening the base.”


Most affluent households still will pay higher taxes next year for other reasons.


A two-year-old payroll tax break is scheduled to lapse at the end of this year. That would increase Social Security taxes by 2 percentage points on wage income below $113,700.


And the Affordable Care Act levies new taxes specifically targeting married couples earning more than $250,000 and singles earning more than $200,000 in adjusted gross income.


Read More..